3 ms·

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

by hkt 4y ago

BossingAround 4y ago
If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration? Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  My understanding is it would help quite a lot, and would also not be sufficient by itself to solve the problem. Too many people jump from "it's not sufficient" to "therefore, we shouldn't do it".
- jaggederest 4y ago
  Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area. So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 60% forest coverage. It would involve giving up important things like farming. It's not entirely a red herring, it will undoubtedly be a big part of climate change mitigation, but the first and most important step is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, like the article.
  - hkt 4y ago
    There's something you've missed there: forests - not just trees but the forest's understory, the animals living in it, the microbes in the soil etc - sequester carbon constantly. It isn't just "how much does the tree weigh, we've sequestered that much", it is about the ecological processes involved. To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves) which then goes into the soil. The nitrogen content is used for matter for plants, while the carbon is not. Over time, this deposits more and more carbon in the ground itself. This is a good, safe place for it, and the model above is one of the simplest. Ecosystems are great at this stuff if we stop setting them on fire or otherwise killing everything. Agreed on keeping it in the ground, though.
    - jaggederest 4y ago
      Well, the studies I was summarizing basically take that into account. The raw tree mass itself is both a) not that big and b) renewed, as you say, by decomposition. Really the purpose of forests is more in terms of soil creation and preservation, as you point out, a lot of the times in the form of shrubs, leaves, or needles and downed wood being infiltrated into substrate.
davidw 4y ago
The city where I live is considering a tree ordinance, driven by some local NIMBYs. I did some rough numbers based on things I found around the internet and: One year of carbon sequestration from a mature tree == 1 or 2 days of commuting to the city 20 miles away that many people who are priced out of this town drive back and forth from. Trees are great, and most places should plant more street trees. But if you preserve trees at the cost of building dense cities that are more environmentally friendly, you're doing it wrong. Dense cities also allow for more trees in actual wild lands outside of them, rather than sprawl. In the US, transportation and heating are our biggest individual contributions to climate change.
- thomascgalvin 4y ago
  There is no single silver bullet, but if you combine tree planting with nuclear / renewable power with remote work with electric vehicles ... eventually it starts to add up. Shooting down solutions because they aren't the entire solution will mean we never make any progress.
  - davidw 4y ago
    Sure; I wasn't saying don't plant trees (street trees provide all kinds of benefits: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/street+trees https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/street+trees ), just that transportation and how we build our cities are so critical. I did not realize the huge, orders of magnitude disconnect between exactly how much CO2 driving puts out and trees sequester. In other unfortunate news: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end-later-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end... GM ending production of the Chevy Bolt in favor of bigger, heavier, deadlier, less efficient EV's.
  - underlipton 4y ago
    Replace EVs with mass transit, and you've got something there. Density as an important component in reducing consumption doesn't end at the apartment building/Nplex lobby. Walking and cycling infrastructure also reduces health costs. Do you want to help curtail the oncoming Medicare crisis? Make Boomers bike.
botanical 4y ago
> Current studies suggest that mangroves and coastal wetlands annually sequester carbon at a rate ten times greater than mature tropical forests. They also store three to five times more carbon per equivalent area than tropical forests. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon/ https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon...
snowwrestler 4y ago
It’s just not enough. Fossil fuels represent millions of years of the stored output of fully wild ecosystems. Rewilding the Earth today only gets us to the starting line to repeat that process.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Just "Reduce conversion of natural ecosystems" is the second biggest GHG impact, after solar and just above wind (though at a slightly higher cost), according to the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary... Reforesting, afforesting and ecosystem restoration are nearly as impactful, but listed seperately.

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

by hkt 4y ago

Carbon sequestration is trivial: we rewild destroyed ecosystems. We don't need to die waiting for Elon. I await my downvotes.

BossingAround 4y ago

If we planted trees on every square meter outside of current cities (and let them grow without disturbing them), would that make a dent in carbon sequestration? Serious question. Planting trees and re-growing ecosystems seems like a simple, straightforward solution, but I feel like it's a red herring.

tunesmith 4y ago
My understanding is it would help quite a lot, and would also not be sufficient by itself to solve the problem. Too many people jump from "it's not sufficient" to "therefore, we shouldn't do it".
jaggederest 4y ago
Afforestation pretty much linearly absorbs carbon based on the size of the area you cover with trees, as a percentage of current forest area. So if we doubled the size and carbon trapping of all the forests on earth, yes, it would make a big dent (solve the problem entirely, maybe). But that's unrealistic, because forests currently cover 30% of the land area of the planet, so we're practically never going to get to 60% forest coverage. It would involve giving up important things like farming. It's not entirely a red herring, it will undoubtedly be a big part of climate change mitigation, but the first and most important step is to stop pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, like the article.
- hkt 4y ago
  There's something you've missed there: forests - not just trees but the forest's understory, the animals living in it, the microbes in the soil etc - sequester carbon constantly. It isn't just "how much does the tree weigh, we've sequestered that much", it is about the ecological processes involved. To give a fairly obvious example, think about deciduous trees: once a year they shed a large amount of carbon (leaves) which then goes into the soil. The nitrogen content is used for matter for plants, while the carbon is not. Over time, this deposits more and more carbon in the ground itself. This is a good, safe place for it, and the model above is one of the simplest. Ecosystems are great at this stuff if we stop setting them on fire or otherwise killing everything. Agreed on keeping it in the ground, though.
  - jaggederest 4y ago
    Well, the studies I was summarizing basically take that into account. The raw tree mass itself is both a) not that big and b) renewed, as you say, by decomposition. Really the purpose of forests is more in terms of soil creation and preservation, as you point out, a lot of the times in the form of shrubs, leaves, or needles and downed wood being infiltrated into substrate.

davidw 4y ago

The city where I live is considering a tree ordinance, driven by some local NIMBYs. I did some rough numbers based on things I found around the internet and: One year of carbon sequestration from a mature tree == 1 or 2 days of commuting to the city 20 miles away that many people who are priced out of this town drive back and forth from. Trees are great, and most places should plant more street trees. But if you preserve trees at the cost of building dense cities that are more environmentally friendly, you're doing it wrong. Dense cities also allow for more trees in actual wild lands outside of them, rather than sprawl. In the US, transportation and heating are our biggest individual contributions to climate change.

thomascgalvin 4y ago
There is no single silver bullet, but if you combine tree planting with nuclear / renewable power with remote work with electric vehicles ... eventually it starts to add up. Shooting down solutions because they aren't the entire solution will mean we never make any progress.
- davidw 4y ago
  Sure; I wasn't saying don't plant trees (street trees provide all kinds of benefits: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/street+trees https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/tag/street+trees ), just that transportation and how we build our cities are so critical. I did not realize the huge, orders of magnitude disconnect between exactly how much CO2 driving puts out and trees sequester. In other unfortunate news: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end-later-this-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/25/gm-bolt-ev-production-to-end... GM ending production of the Chevy Bolt in favor of bigger, heavier, deadlier, less efficient EV's.
- underlipton 4y ago
  Replace EVs with mass transit, and you've got something there. Density as an important component in reducing consumption doesn't end at the apartment building/Nplex lobby. Walking and cycling infrastructure also reduces health costs. Do you want to help curtail the oncoming Medicare crisis? Make Boomers bike.

botanical 4y ago

> Current studies suggest that mangroves and coastal wetlands annually sequester carbon at a rate ten times greater than mature tropical forests. They also store three to five times more carbon per equivalent area than tropical forests. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon/ https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coastal-blue-carbon...

snowwrestler 4y ago

It’s just not enough. Fossil fuels represent millions of years of the stored output of fully wild ecosystems. Rewilding the Earth today only gets us to the starting line to repeat that process.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Just "Reduce conversion of natural ecosystems" is the second biggest GHG impact, after solar and just above wind (though at a slightly higher cost), according to the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary-for-policymakers/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/figures/summary... Reforesting, afforesting and ecosystem restoration are nearly as impactful, but listed seperately.